The name change makes us sound like an American Football Team or Rugby League team with cheerleaders and goals at every opportunity. In other words - an artificial environment devoid of substance. It gives the impression that we are not happy with our lot but can't change it in a meaningful way so we resort to gimmicks: "We might not do very well in the Premier League so let's change our name instead". It's a bit like children who are called "Albert" pretending they are called "Brad". Why do you think newsreaders can't keep a straight face when they mention it?
Because it sounds ****, they just waffled it out on Sky. Going down the list of PL teams "The Hull City Tigers" sounds embarrassingly ****.
If this happens and then in time a City chairmen got an idea, or a proposal to change it again to something like Red Bull Hull Tigers, would you like that? Because that's what your saying is ok. Tradition is everything in football and should be respected. We'd get millions from broadcasting and tv money if we stay up this season. No need to do something this rash.
The club monitors this forum (along with several others) as we've had users being contacted by the club regarding content they've posted (I can't name names). As we're not a City specific group/site that's recognised by fans in the same way CI and AN are the club isn't going to give us equal standing when it comes to arranging things, but there'll certainly be individual users on here that people pay more attention to than others when working out fan opinion on things. Obviously as well Doveston is currently in charge of writing the answers to interview questions before they're turned into Look North friendly responses by Allam Snr.
Because it's tacky, crass, stupid, superficial and dumb. It makes us a laughing stock and a club to be pitied, rather than one to admired and envied. Don't take my word for it. Read 99% of all articles posted on the subject worldwide and all the other HCFC websites who have got together to issue a rare joint statement condemning the proposed change.
Seriously, how long is this pointless argument going to continue between the nay'ers and the don't-give-a-****es?
Aren't we referred to by "Hull City" as well? Does that mean you don't agree with the plan to to call us "Hull Tigers"? Their name: "Hull Tigers" Their nickname: "Tigers" Doesn't sound right. Can you imagine: Q "What's your name?" A "Peter Saxton" Q "What's your nickname?" A "Saxton" I really don't think this name change has been thought through on any level.
Until the handful of happy clapper plastic hand geeks who can't see the problem stop posting their ****e?
Yes...do you think they'll sort out the half time debacle where even if you sprint down for a piss and then line-up for your half-time refreshments, you inevitably end up having to leave the queue because the second half has started.
Because the dont-give-a-****es by definition are not suddenly going to give a ****e because of an argument they don't give a ****e about.
I really can't understand this. I try to judge an argument by the ideas and not who is saying them. The other way seems incredibly shallow. I accept that if I was in charge of the club and I came up with an idea and a large number of the fans didn't like it I wouldn't go ahead with it unless there was compelling evidence.
So we shouldn't comment on any decisions just because the Allam's don't care? The Allam's are not going to be in charge of this club for eternity. Plenty of fans will be still around when they are long gone. Should we have used a similar argument when Hinchliffe and Buchanan owned the club? PS Sorry, I got confused because of all the "*"'s!
